CIA admits it misled Congress... - Page 3

On July 10 2009 05:03 Mindcrime wrote:


When did desire for monetary gain become the driving force behind insurgency? And where do the words "mercenary" or "mercenaries" appear in the Geneva Conventions?

On July 10 2009 05:15 Aegraen wrote:



Combatants and Prisoner-of-War Status

Rule 106. Combatants must distinguish themselves from the civilian population while they are engaged in an attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack. If they fail to do so, they do not have the right to prisoner-of-war status. [IAC]

Rule 107. Combatants who are captured while engaged in espionage do not have the right to prisoner-of-war status. They may not be convicted or sentenced without previous trial. [IAC]

Rule 108. Mercenaries, as defined in Additional Protocol I, do not have the right to combatant or prisoner-of-war status. They may not be convicted or sentenced without previous trial. [IAC]

For the purposes of the present Convention,

1. A mercenary is any person who:

(a) Is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict;

(b) Is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar rank and functions in the armed forces of that party;

(c) Is neither a national of a party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a party to the conflict;

(d) Is not a member of the armed forces of a party to the conflict; and

(e) Has not been sent by a State which is not a party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces.

2. A mercenary is also any person who, in any other situation:

(a) Is specially recruited locally or abroad for the purpose of participating in a concerted act of violence aimed at :

(i) Overthrowing a Government or otherwise undermining the constitutional order of a State; or

(ii) Undermining the territorial integrity of a State;

(b) Is motivated to take part therein essentially by the desire for significant private gain and is prompted by the promise or payment of material compensation;

(c) Is neither a national nor a resident of the State against which such an act is directed;

(d) Has not been sent by a State on official duty; and

(e) Is not a member of the armed forces of the State on whose territory the act is undertaken.

On July 10 2009 05:14 daz wrote:


what is such utter bullshit about it? is it so incredibly impossible to imagine that lets say one of the terrorists involved in planning 9/11 could have been captured. Why is that so impossible? Members of these organizations are being captured regularly. I think it is not only possible but in fact highly likely that some of them are involved in plans to harm the united states. I mean if they arent then what the fuck are they doing in terrorist organizations anyway. What do you think these people do all day?

On July 10 2009 05:32 XoXiDe wrote:


from what i've heard and read the time bomb situation is just not realistic, it isn't 24 jack bauer situations going on out there, and even if it were torture wouldn't be the best method because it takes a long time to break someone down, sleep deprivation, doing water boarding over and over like they did previously 150+ times or whatever other methods, slapping people around, throwing them against walls takes time. it is faster to outsmart the person you are interrogating and i would say usually more reliable, cops also don't torture or coerce people because it doesn't yield reliable information, and can force false confessions despite not being admissible, they use their experience, smarts, and sometimes lies/bluffs to get information. also, i believe the enhanced interrogation techniques had only been used for a few years, and have not been used since 2005, or at least the implementation was repealed.

this guy had testified at the senate judiciary hearings on enhanced interrogation techniques, actually a good video which is probably on cspan.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/23/opinion/23soufan.html

On July 10 2009 05:36 daz wrote:


i think you guys are nitpicking. obviously the exact situation of a ticking time bomb jack bauer TV type of shit is unrealistic but if you are saying that its unrealistic for people involved in an organization whose main purpose is to do harm to a country to have knowledge about plans said organization has to do damage to said country, then i dont know what the fuck is wrong with you

On July 10 2009 05:32 Mindcrime wrote:



That doesn't look any of the Geneva Conventions to me.





Again, when did the desire for monetary gain become the prime motivator?

On July 10 2009 05:41 Aegraen wrote:


I'm not sure you realize, but every terrorists family gets paid quite well upon their death. Monetary gain isn't the sole motivator, but it does play a role.

In any event, the point stands in the eyes of the Geneva Conventions the insurgents we face in Iraq and Afghanistan are considered Mercenaries and as such have no legal rights in international law.

On July 10 2009 05:52 Mindcrime wrote:


You are asserting that every insurgent has some benefactor who will pay his family well upon his death? And that this is a major motivator? Do you have proof of this? There are mercenaries in the area, but there is absolutely no reason to think it is the norm.



You said the Geneva Conventions denied mercenaries such rights, but you didn't quote the Geneva Conventions. Where in the Geneva Conventions is this said about mercenaries?

On July 09 2009 15:00 decafchicken wrote:


It's harmless if you dont mind people making you feel like you're going to drown in order to extract information from you that you may or may not have after being detained without question.

On July 09 2009 15:16 daz wrote:
but it doesnt do any actual physical damage amirite? thats really what i meant. tbh if it isnt doing any actual physical harm i really dont see the problem. I mean like what are the alternatives to waterboarding? Like if you capture some terrorist and you need to extract information from him, what are your options? 1. real torture 2. waterboarding 3. asking politely.

I think waterboarding is a clear winner there

On July 10 2009 02:04 FragKrag wrote:


Um maybe because that person is fully prepared and has been through training?

On July 10 2009 02:19 B1nary wrote:


Of course there are people who, either naturally or through training, can take it for longer periods, just as there are people who won't talk even if you beat them to death. But in general, people don't particularly enjoy the feeling of being drowned.

On July 10 2009 04:51 Aegraen wrote:
None of you should be talking about how intelligence apparatus work. You all have not a single clue.

I think I am the only person on these boards who actually works and studies in an intelligence capacity. The amount of ignorance displayed about actual intelligence work on this board is astonishing. Waterboarding I can assure you, accounted for less than 0.0001% of all intelligence gathered.

On July 10 2009 06:00 Aegraen wrote:


Do I have to hand-hold you? The only rights in the Geneva Convention are levied upon Prisoners of War. The conventions explicitly make clear who is eligible to be a POW. The Conventions aren't that long, I'm sure someone as smart as yourself can peruse the document and come to the same conclusion, the only conclusion within the Conventions.

Convention 3, Article 5
"Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal."

In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be.

P.S. You are biased in that you are basing the definition of Mercenary on the arbitrary usage in the dictionary. The Conventions clearly define the term mercenary. If you cannot clearly understand what is being conveyed, then that's your fault not mine.

On July 10 2009 06:15 travis wrote:
drumroll please



and there we have it

On July 10 2009 06:19 Aegraen wrote:


You are quite aware that the context was within the whole intelligence community? Waterboarding isn't a measure to be used as I've said earlier, on those of lesser stature and hierachy.

Most intel that is gathered comes from OSINT. HUMINT specifically within interrogation methods accounts on the whole for quite the low amount however, what is gathered is extremely coveted and valuable because often times that is the only means in which to acquire the information. COMINT, SIGINT, MASINT, ELINT, OSINT, TELINT, etc. cannot achieve the means to acquire said information.

As I've put it before, do not talk about such things in which you have limited to no understanding, to be quite blunt.

CIA interrogators used waterboarding at least 266 times on two top al Qaeda suspects, according to a Bush-era Justice Department memo released by the Obama administration.

Interrogators also waterboarded Khalid Sheikh Mohammed 183 times in March 2003. Mohammed is believed to be the mastermind behind the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States.

On July 10 2009 06:32 L wrote:
I looked at page one and assumed this would be an Aegraen troll fest at page 3.

I was right.